Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher

( Skip to Table of Contents → )

Also see: Talk:Trial of Knox and Sollecito

Judy Bachrach and the Larry King Live show

I am new to the Wikipedia talk page, I hope I can do this appropriately. As a preliminary disclaimer, I am a dual Italian-American citizen.

I find the "Italian justice system" section of the article objectionable.

It seems strange to me that the opinions expressed by one ecclesiastic judge on the roots and principles of the Italian justice, as recounted by one reporter in the context of a highly opinionated Vanity Fair piece, have a place in this Enclyclopedia.

I watched the cited LKL show, and was appalled by Bachrach's description of the case, much more based on mostly derogatory anthropological observations on Italy and Italians in general than on the specific matter at hand.

It seems to me that this section is solely based upon highly biased, personal opinions that do little to provide a framework for understanding the case and its wider context.

Is this note the proper way to propose that this section be eliminated unless profoundly revised? I do not think that citing the lack of alternate opinions is sufficient justification to include in the article an undocumented fringe view of a matter as complex as a country's legal system.

Thank you, Giuseppe Bertini —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giuseb (talk • contribs) 10:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ciao, Giuseppe. I agree, the section merely reports tittle-tattle. - By the way, you can sign your name by adding four tildes. Rothorpe (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The section is actually factual, but I wonder why on earth this much room is given to two appearances of a single journalist... Averell (talk) 10:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly, I will tag the section for bias. --Karl franz josef (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The "Inquisition" slur is repeated twice. This is biased and NOT factual. US Dept of Justice: "The Italian judicial system, based on Roman law and modified by the Napoleonic Code..." http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=106708 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.254.144 (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

For info, Italy (like France and others) operates the Inquisitorial system (as opposed to the adversarial system used in the USA. It is not better or worse, just different. Think of it like the US District Attorney), so the initial investigation is managed by an examining magistrate, called a judge. In major trials such as this one, the case is taken by a more senior judge and the trial is quite adversarial. Mapping this to the Inquisition is just pathetic. In my opinion, the section should be removed as the commentator fails the notability test - she clearly doesn't understand what she is talking about or doesn't understand what she has been told. Or she is being deliberately disingenuous. --Red King (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Seeing as the suspects have their own infoboxes, surely Meredith Kercher should have one as well. After all, she is the victim, and as such merits an infobox.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Funny that, I added one nearly two years ago and it was removed by an editor that said we don't do that thing! Swings and roundabouts on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.68.26 (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the victim should have an infobox as each of the two suspects and the convict do. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Judicial analysis of the Rudy Guede conviction

Please forgive my inexperience with wikidom,which I so greatly respect.

I wish to provide a reference to a document written by Judge Paolo Micheli, who presided over the fast track trial of Rudy Guede. It is my understanding that it is a requirement of Italian law for a judge to provide within ninety days of delivering a verdict a written explanation of his reasoning in arriving at his decision. This type of document may be called a "motivazione" or "motivi della decisione" and is found at http://www.penale.it/page.asp?mode=1&IDPag=750. As the hard evidence of the murder of Meredith is disputed and source material for the evidence for the most part difficult to establish, it would seem valuable to include this resource. Dottore Micheli's detailed analysis is, of course, in Italian. I counted 71 "Page Dn" clicks to reach the end. I have read the google translation in "botEnglish" in its entirety and found it to be very helpful in detailing and analysing the facts of the case. In the trial of Amanda Knox and Rafaele Sollicito I see a large cultural bias expressed generally by the American media; I have been following this case from its inception in various Italian newspapers (not without their own bias).

I ask that you consider including this document reference as essential to the subject: the murder of Meredith Kercher... (and may she rest in peace) —George langur (talk • contribs) 16:39, 2 December 2009

Is there any way to get a link to this in English? This document is very important and should be incuded in this article for English readers as well. Thank you. PilgrimRose (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Using Google Translate, the botEnglish recap of Guede's trial is: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=http://www.penale.it/page.asp%3Fmode%3D1%26IDPag%3D750&ei=WQ4eS_DSOYO4NZjA9asK&sa=X&oi=translate .
  That trial-recap is very detailed, but difficult to read because of bot-botched translation and 1-letter name abbreviations: sometimes Meredith is "M." but others as "K." (for "Kercher"); Amanda Knox is often "K." (K.A.M.); Guede is "G." (G.R.H.) but, of course, being a full evidence report, many other neighbor's initials are also mentioned. The detail of the house is extensive, as a 2-story, with several bathrooms (at least 2 on 2nd floor). Some of the details to consider for article: the entire 2nd floor was searched; friends said Meredith never left her UK mobile phone (needed to discuss illness of her mother); broken window was in another room but laptop/jewelry not taken (only phones/cash from Meredith); downstairs neighbors said Guede rarely "pulled the chain" on toilet (rather than claim he forgot to flush when he heard M. screaming); horror of blood "dripping everywhere" in bedroom/bath, with much evidence of cleanup/shifting attributed to others (not G.); clothing removed post-mortem due to blood-spatter patterns on skin/fabrics; partial blood prints in outside hallway; many discussions with neighbors; etc. I think that webpage could be a major source of details for the article, or perhaps better used in "Trial of Knox and Sollecito". -Wikid77 (talk) 09:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Italian justice system section is all POV - request delete!

This is completely and utterly reprehensible. And is arguably contempt of court in any jurisdiction in the world. It has two two sources: Judy Bachrach and John Q. Kelly. So the criticism is singular and from a reporter (not a legal expert) and a lawyer not connected with the case.

It's egregious and cynical and has just one purpose to smear the Italian Judiciary. Likewise just because this section is referenced from two named sources does not make it correct in assumptions. It's Fringe theory and based on complete lies. Yet the lies are given undue providence and the "real" facts are tagged onto the end.

Just reading it makes my toes curl.

The Italian justice system has been criticized by American reporter Judy Bachrach. Bachrach quoted an Italian ecclesiastical judge, who is not employed in the Italian legal system, in an article about Knox for Vanity Fair magazine. The ecclesiastical judge claimed that the Italian justice system “stems from the Inquisition and also from medieval law. [It] is based on the supremacy of the prosecution. This nullifies the fact – written in our constitution – that you’re innocent until proven guilty.” Bachrach did not seek out an alternate opinion.
On October 18, 2009, Bachrach appeared on a broadcast of CNN's Larry King Live which featured Knox's parents. Bachrach claimed that in Italy “the ordinary person is considered guilty until proven innocent. Italy's laws are direct descendants of the Inquisition.” On that same King show, John Q. Kelly – a prosecuting attorney in the civil trial against OJ Simpson – commented on the Italian Justice system in relation to its treatment of Knox and Sollecito. He said that “it's probably the most egregious, international railroading of two innocent young people that I have ever seen.” (Kelly does not represent anyone involved in the Kercher trial.) King did not feature any experts in Italian justice on the show to provide a counterbalance to Bachrach or Kelly.
The Italian judiciary system is derived from Roman law and Napoleonic code. The Constitution of Italy, article 27, reads "The defendant is not considered guilty until final judgement is passed"; in article 111, that "Guilt shall not be established on the basis of statements made by anyone who has freely chosen not to submit to questioning by the defendant or the defendant’s Counsel ad litem".
It is also a fact that Italy has a very complex legal system with three levels of courts: First Grade Court, Appellate Court and the Supreme Court, the "Corte di Cassazione". A defendant can appeal to all levels of courts including the Supreme Court in most cases. In comparison, the legal system in many other countries (e.g. USA) features much stronger filters between the appeal trial and the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, it shows what happens when you have amateurs doing this stuff, when you include quotes like this “it's probably the most egregious, international railroading of two innocent young people that I have ever seen.” How can the source say that, are they trying the case, NO! It's for the court and the jury to decide. Kelly is also implying impropriety, collusion and dishonesty on the part of the Italian Judiciary. The case is still active and that's contempt of court.

This whole section should be deleted forthwith, as it's arguably WP:FRINGE (only two cited proponents), dubious (the quotes are based on personal conclusions - and not established facts) and it's entirely NPOV.

It's ironic WP has strict rules on Living Person biographies regarding libellous material but nothing concerning contempt of court actions while legal trials are still being held!!!

I therefore recommend for these reasons stated that this section should be deleted forewith.

[Besides if you want hypocrisy; before you start to smear a country's legal profession, is it not better to start with one's own first? Maurice Clemmons, the man who is alleged to have killed those police officers in Washington state was released by the US legal system after only serving a few years of a 35 years sentence. To me that suggests the U.S. judicial system has serious issues of its own]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.68.26 (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

clearly not neutral --Frukko (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Again: I'm all in favor of cutting that section down as it's not utterly relevant. However, it deserves at least a fleeting mention, since it seems to have been in mainstream media and has potentially reached millions of people. Also, it is not required in Wikipedia that each section is "neutral", NPOV means only that the whole article presents all (relevant) points of view equally without giving preference to one. It is also not required that a source is neutral or (in this case) qualified. That said, I'll chop a good part out of this now. Averell (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I am tagging the section for bias.--Karl franz josef (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Not enough, it should be deleted as either pathetic or disingenuous. See above. --Red King (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

For American readers, I think a level-headed discussion of the differences between the two legal systems relative to their handling of the case would be helpful. Different legal systems have different standards of evidence and procedural rules. For example, Americans may benefit from an explanation of why the jury was not sequestered in spite of the charged media atmosphere, while in the US, we would be very careful to make sure that the jury reaches its decision based only on the evidence presented at trial. Also, public criticism of the handling of a trial is legitimate discussion. See the WP articles on the OJ trial, the trial of Sacco and Venzetti, the Rosenburgs, etc. etc. Italian courts are not exempt from this.208.73.29.10 (talk) 03:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Article clearly biased in favor of defendants

One of Wikipedia's guidelines for articles is the neutrality of the author. This article clearly favors the defendants and, in particular, Amanda Knox. If someone wants to write on this subject, fantastic. But please revise to reflect more of the prosecution's evidence that supports its case. For example, there was a knife found at Sollecito's apartment with both Knox and Kercher's DNA. Also, Knox has changed her story so many times, it would be impossible for anyone on the jury to believe anything she says. I don't know if Knox and Sollecito are guilty or innocent. But the author(s) of this article seem to. They are not journalists and this contribution has serious flaws. -SeriousFred (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I have been supporting wikipedia financially but I won't do so in the future. They should finally hire some professional editors. Every other article of a defendant in a serious crime while on trial gets a hideous pr whitewash in favour of the defendant. This is a joke and it has to stop. People running wikipedia now for better or worse have a very responsible position, the have to respect that. To all the editors here: Congratulate yourself for whitewashing another article. Also the attacks on the italian judicial system are ludicrous. Who the heck do you think you are criticising a nation's penal system, a nation that is far more historical than the old U.S. of A. and arguably more cultured to. As soon as a U.S. person is standing trial abroad a huge pr machine goes in place, which is all good and well by some, but that doesn't have a place in what is claimed to be a world encyclopaedia. The accused here should actually be thanking her lucky stars because if she had been found guilty in most states of the United States she would have got the death penalty. 21:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.58.44 (talk)

This article would certainly benefit from the attention of a professional writer. It will attract many readers and editors who are severely biased. For over two years, the British media has had a strong tendency to assume Guede, Knox and Sollecito guilty and the US media to assume that Knox is innocent. That, along with many people's bias for their own countrypeople, makes many of those interested in this case have strong views / biases about it. We need to present a fuller case so that the reader can gain a better idea of what actually happened. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 03:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Media portrayal - Independent quote

The quote from the Independent is excessively long. In general we summarise not quote. More importantly a quote of this length seems likely to breach copyright. I am inclined to replace the quote with a short summary but would welcome views, first. TerriersFan (talk) 14:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Bold edit to the Media section

I did a bold edit to the craptacular "Media Portrayal" section. I was full of unnecessary details, newspaper quotes that were beyond any sane definition of fair use (yes, that makes it a copyright violation) and opinions of all people who might have one on that case. Just because one gazillion articles were in the newspapers, that doesn't mean we have to mention them all. The trick is to highlight the main lines of the debate without getting bogged down. I hope that the tone is also more neutral now and that it helps to take care of the POV accusations. Averell (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Who is Judy Bachrach?

Last time I checked she wrote for Vanity Fair which is not akin to the Harvard Law Review. I don't think she is credible to pass judgement on the Italian Justice System, no more than an Italian judge is credible to quote on fashion. The fact that this article has been reduced to vanity fair reports comparing the inquisition to the italian justice system is another sign of what a sad place wikipedia is turning it. Again, congratulate yourself editors that this article read like a gossip column by the american defendants pr machine. Brilliant work. 149.254.58.44 (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Vanity Fair is a reputable magazine that routinely covers politics and culture as well as fashion and entertainment.--Gotophilk (talk) 03:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• It doesn't matter that Vanity Fair is a reputable magazine. The section under discussion is biased due to the inclusion of Bachrach's opinion. If no opposing opinions are included, we are not following the accepted tenets of neutrality. Simply saying that no other sources can be found (which they can be) is not acceptable for an article of such current moment. The consequences of not appropriately addressing this problem will be the removal of said section. --Karl franz josef (talk) 03:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • It does matter that Vanity Fair is a reputable magazine. 149.254.58.44 claimed that it's not; that's the point I was responding to, not the substance of the article. --Gotophilk (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that there are no "opposing opinions" as far as I see. If there had been a public outcry over her opinion, we would have to include that. But as far as I can see, there was none. If the world doesn't bring counter-arguments, it's not our job to create them. (Of course, if you find the public outcry, include it!). However, the only reason for deleting it would be the argument "it's not important enough". The arguments "she isn't right", "she isn't qualified" or such don't count. Averell (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• We aren't in a position to be arbiters of whether each particular source is biased or not. Our task is merely to represent all points of view, one of which is represented in the Vanity Fair piece. Blowfish (talk) 06:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• Really, could where the bias is? The section reports that there was both "pro" and "con" media coverage and (to me) the tone seems pretty neutral. And yes, we report that this Bachrach compared the Italian justice to the inquisition; the reason is that she said that, and that she said that in front of millions of people. The article reports just that she said that, not that she's right. Nor is she presented as the only voice on the case (both of which would be NPOV). However, the article is not about the Italian justice system, and I don't see any reason to include a lengthy discussion on Bachrach's view of and qualification to comment on the subject. Averell (talk) 08:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• I think this particular paragraph should be deleted because it is of no consequence and is actually wrong. The Italian justice system is not "adversarial" like the USA system but "inquisitorial" and descended from Roman Law and the Napoleonic Code. In other words the judiciary doesn't balance the arguments of the prosecution versus the defence, rather it inquires into all evidence to seek the truth (although the appeal courts have now incorporated the "adversarial" system). To say that a defendant is "considered guilty until proven innocent" is just plain wrong. One reason that there might not have been a "public outcry" is possibly the fact that outside the USA not many people have heard about this woman. To assert that the Italian legal system is descended from the Inquisition is nonsense and insulting. Please remove this paragraph. rturus (talk) 12:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

@Averell, Blowfish, Gotophilk. Are you joking? What universal opinion? Do you think that the italian and european media go along with that trash that their system is based on the inquisition in the sense that it presupposes guilt? Of course there is disagreement with this opinion but no one really bothers with some american media to even reply to them. What is that garbage? I feel furious to even have to waste my time discussing this. That is why wikipedia should hire some professional editors. As I asked in the title of this discussion, who is this woman, on what authority does she speak? Because she is not reporting a fact, she is expressing an opinion, she is making a judgement? Does she have the authority to pass this judgement, of course she does not.

I am sick and tired of some wikipedia minders not making any sense and yet having their way here. I will delete this preposterous quote, If you want to re-instate it you should ask for consensus because it is clear a lot of parties consider it unacceptable here. And they those who do find it merits a place here are the usual hangers on with the agenda.

Let me sum up here the reason I am deleting it: The author of that quote in that american magazine does not have the authority to make a value judgement on a legal system because she lacks the background and expertise in Italian law. Moreover this is not a reputable publication to pass judgement on legal issues, because the don't have the gravitas or the expertise for that. If they were merely reporting a corroborated fact that would have been another issue, but they are not.

And let's not beat about the bush here, this is clearly put there to discredit a whole legal system, just because some American sociopath decided they would kill abroad for a change instead of their natural habitat which is the United States famous for having the highest obesity and crime rates in the world. And just because of some misguided patriotism a whole legal system has to be discredited based on a quote by some unknown on a U.S. rag.

The above three parties I mentioned please don't bother replying here, instead open a consensus vote because some of us here actually have a life and don't know how to. In any case I do not think your positions here are worthy of further response and I shall not respond to you. 149.254.56.40 (talk) 03:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see the page has been semi locked so I wont be able to edit it. The morons here will have their way as per usual. I am off. Enjoy this piece of crap that wikipedia has become. 149.254.56.40 (talk) 03:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

All 11 counts?

Can someone find a credible link that states each count that both Raffeale and Amanda were charged with and can someone post this in the article? I keep revising when people type " GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS OF MURDER". Because whoever writing this is an idiot.... murder is ONE of the counts as is theft and sexual assault...but I didn't have time to write down what Wolf Blitzer said about the other ones on CNN. If someone could find this and post this...that would be nice. Thanks. WiiAlbanyGirl (talk) 23:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The CNN article http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/12/04/italy.knox.trial/index.html states she was convicted on all counts excluding theft —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.67.167 (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

'All counts' (US) = 'all charges' (UK). Just one of those counts was Murder. There were others. --Red King (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Evidence?

It's hard to get a sense from this article what actual evidence there was against Amanda Knox. Ideally, I'd want to be able to understand both points of view from this article, but I'm not sure that either is all that well explained. Blowfish (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

the article is incorrect. There is physical evidence against her. See: http:/ the murder victim on it. The article is wrong on two counts because this is considered the murder weapon. The article has some obvious bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.116.112.2 (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The knife is the only physical evidence against her. It contained not only Amanda's DNA and Kercher's DNA, but also Sollecito's DNA. This is not surprising since the three of them were together at times. The fact that DNA from all three people are present on the knife indicated the knife wasn't cleaned. Hence, luminol could easily identify blood on the knife (as it would even if the knife had been cleaned). But no blood was found. Hence it's not the murder weapon. This is further corroborated by the fact that the knife didn't match Kercher's wounds or the outline of the murder weapon found at crime scene. All other evidence against Knox involved Sollecito's DNA or boot print at crime scene, as if she's guilty by association. Kercher was raped, and then silenced by her rapist. Guede's semen was found in Kercher. Three people can't rape and kill someone unless the victim keeps coming back to life to be raped and killed again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.133.151 (talk) 09:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There's still things in the article that are left unsaid - though I don't know if this is to do with the editors or the Italian judicial system. For example, the print found in blood was described as matching Sollecito's shoe, but that this was then contested by the defence. The article then just leaves it at that. Was it then conclusively proven to belong to his shoe? The outcome? The prosecution wouldn't have just left it there. ArdClose (talk) 14:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there is much more evidence that was presented during the trial. For example: When did Sollecito and Knox arrive at the house where the murder had taken place, and when did they call the police, and did they call the police at all, or only after the postal police had arrived? I remember that this and other questions were discussed on Italian TV, such as in Bruno Vespa's political talk show Porta a porta on RaiUno. Unfortunately, this is not just a murder case, but also an example for bad journalism. Lots of journalists reported about all kinds of things, such as the presumably medieval Italian justice system, or about Knox' parents, but hardly anyone took the time to actually concentrate on and examine the facts and the evidence (or lack of). Even yesterday, on Larry King Live, the case was "discussed" for one hour, without ever mentioning the facts leading to the arrest and conviction of Guede, Sollecito, and Knox. But of course there was time enough to have a friend of Knox tell the world for several minutes about how nice and sweet a girl Amanda is. At least then the host (it wasn't King, but someone sitting in for him) could have asked the friend whether incriminating a completely unrelated person (Lumumba) would also be part of that sweetness. We obviously have to wait and see whether at least after the trial there might be a chance for serious reporting on the case. I'm going to check Italian media for more material and possible sources. --Catgut (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

i agree it is a bad story, personally i think the italian justice had some clues, like when the article says knox implicated herself for being at the crime scene(having apparently otherwise denied that and not informed the police). also it is quite impossible to forget what you have done a whole evening from smoking marihuana, that is pretty hard even on alcohol. so alcohol is either used or remained unmentioned, a problem i have with this is the conviction of guede, an apparently traumatised kid, the problem i have is that if two other people get convicted for supposed accomplicy and incite, he just has the more credible excuse for clearing the ground. and also when he gets a heavier punishment. my personal suspicion is the italian justice does not usually convict 3 people to such long terms over 1 murder, so here is where the element of xenophobism shines through wich clouds our view on what really happened. next i think the blackmailing option her family allows raises suspicions about how they usually deal with legal issues.24.132.171.225 (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you ever smoked a joint before, but if you are a serious stoner remembering what happened even a day ago is difficult, even if it's important. Your responses to stressful situations will also be questionable, but in a wierd stoner way..logical. Like covering your ears when you hear your flatmate screaming. I think the level of her smoking should be mentioned in this article if there's any information about it.. seeing as it was used in her defence. I mean did she have a little joint or a gigantic bong? Did she smoke weed? If so, what type? The crappy stuff that you get off bums or the really strong GM strains from amsterdam? How often did she smoke? Did she do blowbacks? Did she inhale and hold it? What if it was dipped in acid for god's sake?? 86.42.206.219 (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

A high proportion of the media coverage of this case is biased one way or the other. Readers of this article want to work out if they really did it or not. There is so little about the evidence for anyone reading this to work that out. If evidence such as a footprint is disputed, what is the truth of that matter; what ruling was made on that and why? Was the knife the murder weapon or not? Whose knife was it? If it was kept in the kitchen and used by all those living there, then DNA from them would prove they used it, but that could be just from normal kitchen use on food, not necessarily from using it to kill Kercher. There is little about independent witnesses; did any disinterested parties see any of those convicted at or around the time of the murder? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 03:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

So she was a drug addict (defined by her life being ruined by drugs, or ruining someone elses) that killed a friendly, intelligent young woman. Shame Italy doesn't have the death penalty.

There is growing evidence in the forensics community that some of the claims for the reliability of certain types of evidence are greatly overblown. In particular, ballistics (matching a bullet to a specific gun to the exclusion of all others) and shoeprints (matching a print to a specific shoe to the exclusion of all others) are not definitive as has been claimed. Eyewitness identification is also notoriously unreliable. Hopefully, the defense pointed all this out during the trial. But I would also vote for a point-by-point description of the evidence from both sides.208.73.29.10 (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Separate pages for murders, victims and suspects/convicts?

Can we consider spinning off separate pages for the principal players? If Street Fighter characters can have their own page, I think real, and currently newsworthy, people should not be consolidated into one messy umbrella article.

To be honest, I think maybe Amanda Knox should have her own given the amount of coverage she has received, but I'm not sure that she'd be found to be notably independent, that is, have notability other than being involved in this murder. I know what you mean about Street Fighter characters, but basically that's the nature of wikipedia at the moment and there's loads of people that clamour to keep articles like that and on dungeons and dragons and stuff. Stupid really, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS basically says that even though they have those articles which probably aren't notable, you can't neccessarily have others Petepetepetepete (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is not (and should not be) about the people, but about the crime. The crime is noteworthy and the people are only noteworthy in their relation to the crime. We would have never heard of any of them if not for the murder. Also, I don't see that the article is particularly long or messy in a way that would require it to be broken down in separate pieces. Averell (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to give a separate article to anyone involved in the case; none of them have any notability outside the case. Guede committed crimes previously, but none of them are notable. Knox receives more media coverage than the others - because she is pretty. However, she is still not notable outside this event. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, none of the individuals involved are notable other than being a part of this event. No separate articles seem required. SGGH ^ping! 16:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. --Red King (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Less inflamatory article title

I suggest the article be called "Meredith Kercher murder case" or "The Meredith Kercher murder case" As it is the article suggest a description of the actual murder in perhaps a step by step basis and is more salacious. Hunter2005 (talk) 07:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

No. The article is about the crime, and the title is in line with other articles about such crimes, as Murder of Robert McCartney.

There is no doubt it was a murder; plus three people have been found guilty of it. The title is fine. Modest Genius ^talk 11:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Knox is from?

The lead states Spencer, Indiana; her section further down the article states Seattle both in the section and infobox. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I just Googled the words "Amanda Knox Spencer Indiana" and the only match is this article. All the news reports are saying she's from Seattle, so that's what it should say here unless someone can find a reference that backs this up. It's possible I suppose that she was born in Spencer, Indiana and moved to Seattle. Whatever the case, however, as the information is not referenced I'll change it to Seattle. Thanks TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn’t generally put murder cases on its front page news

I guess the reason behind this story being there is because it involves an American, and this created something of a media storm. I should imagine that anyone else other than the Americans/British/Italians may find this slightly bias. Let’s say it involved a British person killing another British person, it certainly wouldn’t make the front page, because it certainly wouldn’t create as much media attention. But let’s just say it’s because of the intense media coverage that surrounded the warped and frankly hideous actions of Amanda Knox and also the scrutiny of her personal life, as well as the horrible campaign started up by a bunch of bible basing right wing Americans to try and get Knox freed based on nothing other than “She’s an American, we have greater rights!” cliché. And then theres the dubious Italian police coming under scrutiny too… All in all, I think this story does belong on the front page due to the mass media coverage and nothing else. Owell. --Sushi Shushi! (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it's gone. --Sushi Shushi! (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Assume good faith just may apply here. From my own standpoint the nature of the crime, ages of persons involved and that it was an international case invovling different countries may be the reason that it was initally placed within In The News. You can't assume that every American Wikipedia contributor is pushing an "America First" agenda or all we'll end up with here are endless arguments and debates.Shinerunner (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It was removed due to objections on the In The News discussion area. SGGH ^ping! 16:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Shinerunner that is utterly false I was not talking about American Wikipedians, but the coverage in the media and that alone. Please retract your comment. Also, I have just clarified my comments to make them more clear and you should have no trouble in understanding them now. Instead of just accusing me, you should of just asked exactly what I meant. --Sushi Shushi! (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if I mistook your remarks and have struck my comments. However, I've recently seen a number of very harsh statements by some editors regarding contributions from American Wikipedians. The way your original statement was worded (to me) fell into that type of comment.Shinerunner (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, and sorry I should have worded it better, my bad. There's no bias on the page form what I can see. It was sorted out (Checked the edit history). All is well. Thanks. (The media really have pissed on this case, that's for sure)...--Sushi Shushi! (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem, I'll be sure to ask for clarification from now on. Sometimes I just can't believe what people will post on here.Shinerunner (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The murder trial is on WP for the same reason that the OJ and Sacco and Venzetti trials are, namely that they are famous and controversial. Part of the controversy has to do with the sensational nature of the accusations, namely that this was a drug/sex/Satanism murder. I can't believe that no one has mentioned this, but this is not the kind of murder that women typically commit. There are exceptions, of course; Charles Manson had female accomplices. But they are exceedingly rare. That kind of killing is most often a "guy thing." But the nature of the accusations guaranteed media attention. Just like the famous trials mentioned above, there are noteworthy aspects of the trial that transcend the events in the courtroom, and they deserve discussion.208.73.29.10 (talk) 02:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Where does it say that this case involved Satanism? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Google "Amanda Knox" and "Satanic" and you will see many articles similar to this one: "Kercher slaying was part of 'satanic ritual', say prosecutors" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.73.29.10 (talk) 03:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The media reported that the prosecution claimed it was Satanism, but it seems more like it was motivated by sadism and hate combined with the desire of the killers to overpower Kercher and force her into sex then kill her when she refused to comply. However, there is a lack of certainty regarding the motive(s). Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 04:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Feces/faeces

The British spelling is faeces. I added this comment before but somone deleted it. 86.42.206.219 (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I take that it was you who removed two comments form the above discussion. Please don’t do this as it constitutes vandalism. Your original comment was removed because it wasn’t added to the talk page properly, and that was clearly explained in the edit summery I left. --Sushi Shushi! (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

What? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.244.21 (talk) 12:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Appealed?

Um, the (appealed)note in the info box needs to be removed until April 2010 and it is not guaranteed that an appeal will be allowed. Under Italian law the convicted felon cannot appeal for a minimum three months after conviction. [1]Twobells (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Twobells: What is the standard for appeals? Is it that you must present an appeal with some merit or novel issue of law or it will not be heard, or is it that only a select few appeals are heard? Do you know the percentage of appeals that are successful? PilgrimRose (talk) 02:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

An appeal is always allowed under Italian law and is always heard. The appellate trial in Italy is basically a new trial in which both teams can present their case anew. As for the 90 days period this is the maximum amount of days the judge has in order to file the explanation for the verdict (but he can file it as soon as he wish). An appeal is possible only after this explanation document has been filed. By the way also "convicted" is wrong as technically speaking she's still regarded as innocent under Italian law (at least until all the possible appeals are exhausted). I'm sorry I've no reference in English since US based media didn't care too much to explain to their readers the strong differences between the two different criminal law systems. --78.12.158.220 (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Drugs

"Like Knox, he admits to having smoked marijuana on the day of the murder." She says earlier in this wikipedia article that she smokes hashish. Please clarify! They are not the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.226.129 (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Most probably it is cannbis resin as this is the most common form of cannabis in Italy, also I've only heard american media report she had been smoking marijuana. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.141.219 (talk)

"video of the five cannabis plants that were being cultivated in a small side room of their flat." Seattle PI (http://www.seattlepi.com/local/400193_knox15.html) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.231.67 (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolute mess

This is an absolute mess. Wouldnt it be better if we just had some facts about amanda knox under that heading and all the stuff concerning the investigation under that specific heading. There no mention of Ms Knox changing her story and being caught lying by security cameras and the whole deal with ms knox being spotted outside a supermarket at 7:30 buying cleaning products when she claimed to be sleeping. These are all proven facts which should be mentioned.

Earlier versions of the article went into great detail about the evidence but biased editors have removed most of it: "I have culled the long lists of evidence recently inserted, as they were basically big blobs of less important information." and on this page, pre-11:21, 5 December 2009, a lot of evidence was tidied up by SilkTork.

This whole wiki article reeks of bias and should be sorted out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.141.219 (talk) 03:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

How about providing PROOF that she bought cleaning products? like a link to back up your claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.17.233 (talk) 10:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

How about THIS http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/5028729/Meredith-Kercher-murder-A-new-hole-appears-in-Amanda-Knoxs-alibi.html now.... on your way —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjorn I. Clever (talk • contribs) 11:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Then put it in the article itself if you don't see it and stop bitching about it from the side lines. Hunter2005 (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have added this factoid into the article. Next time as long as you cite a source and keep the language neutral you can edit it yourself. Hunter2005 (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I would have done so myself if it was possible but I was unable to, and please, less of the profanities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjorn I. Clever (talk • contribs) 06:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Judy Bachrach paragraph

I would like to propose the deletion of the paragraph in which Judy Bachrach gives her opinion on the Italian justice system. First of all, the quote used has almost nothing to do with the evidence of the case and only addresses Bachrach's opinion on the Italian justice system which, I believe, doesn't have a place under the specific titling of this section: "Media Portrayal." By "media portrayal" it is inferred that it is media portrayal of the murder of Kercher, not of the Italian justice system which is a derived argument. While the paraphrase does mention that Bachrach has investigated the "contradictions in the case," the outcome of her research is missing. Finally, I don't believe that Bachrach, as a journalist for Vanity Fair, has the appropriate standing to comment on the Italian justice system; certainly not to a degree to be included in a WP article. I believe we should all attempt to approach this article in a rational manner and put our own personal feelings of the case aside which is our job as editors of a presumably "neutral" encyclopedia. I would like to hear others' feedback before changes occur.--Karl franz josef (talk) 06:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph in question mentions a judge, but does not state his name. If this info is to remain in the article, his name should be stated. If Bacharach is notable, she should have her own article. If not, why should so much of the Media portrayal section be about what she said? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 10:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• The judge quoted in the Vanity fair article is "ecclesiastical judge Count Neri Capponi" - in other words, not a judge involved in criminal or civil law, only in matters of the Roman Catholic church (which would obviously have inquisition precedents). Therefore this is either a deliberate attempt by Judy Bachrach to discredit the Italian legal system or an example of her complete lack of understanding. If you actually read the article in question you can make up your own mind about this sensationalist and frequently erroneous piece, obviously aimed at a certain USA market. rturus (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It also claims that in Italian law "the ordinary person is considered guilty until proven innocent". This would clearly be in contravention of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights which states that "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law". It is nonsense to suggest that the entire Italian legal system is in contravention of European law. Bluewave (talk) 13:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sub section media coverage on national basis?

One of the problems in finding a neutral position for this article based on suitable reliable sources, is the editorial position taken by each countries media. In the Italy three people have be found guilty under a fair justice system; in the UK, our tabloid press have exploited the seedier side of Knox's reputation, which has been semi-legitimised by the broad sheets; and in the US, various commentators shocked that any legal system could find any American guilty of such a heinous crime have been overly vocal. Hence, trying to find a neutral position amongst differing supporting sources and media angles will be improbable.

The facts of the case are that a young British lady was murdered in Italy, and so far an American lady, an Italian man and an Italian resident African have been found guilty and sentenced under an Italian legal system. The problem in writing that is in: the lack of clarity in the time lined story of how the murder happened (a continual police and prosecutor problem during the whole trial); the three different editorial positions taken by each countries media. To me this suggest that part of the articles coverage should be in highlighting the differing editorial positions taken by each countries media, other wise the differences and numerous re-writes can never be consolidated. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I would also say the Italian media has been doing pretty much the same as the British media in that response. --Sushi Shushi! (talk) 15:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Bias/POV issues

Someone placed both Bias and POV tags on the article, and incorrectly didn't start a debate section on the talkpage - so happy to start one. Problems seem to be (add to the list where you feel appropriate):

• No clear timeline or inclusion of evidence
• No clear coverage of the court case, or debate within
• Bias/POV against the Italian legal system
• Bias on overtly debating Knox's innocence having been found guilty
• Bias/POV on debates around Italian legal system through over exposure of Judy Bachrach article and US media exposure
• Bias against American defendant on the basis of her nationality
• Bias in presuming the guilt of defendants —Preceding unsigned comment added by PilgrimRose (talk • contribs) 05:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There is also a tone of anti-Americanism, but this is presently conflicted and potentially balanced by overt tones of Knox's innocence post conviction. It seems to me in summary at present, a reader could get a more neutral point of view by reading the talk over the article. --Trident13 (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

That looks like a pretty good summary of the problems with the article. I read the article and felt it told me very little about the case but a great deal about people's (editors') points of view. By contrast, I read an article about the case in today's Sunday Times which set out the events, evidence and personalities involved, very clearly and without obvious bias. Bluewave (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with both of you. The invesitagtion/trial sections need more developement as well as the Bias/POV problems. Also, the main focus on Knox over the other defendants is unbalanced as well.Shinerunner (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there needs to be more focus on the actual evidence. The amount of attention to Knox doesn't seem unreasonable however, given the amount of interest that she individually has garnered in multiple countries. In Italy she has been demonized (justifiably or not); in the US she has been lionized as a saint (despite very little reporting of the actual evidence against her). Because of the attention given to Knox, there should at the very least be a discussion of her portrayal in respective countries, and accurate representation of the evidence against her as well as claims of innocence. Blowfish (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. However, undue weight should not be given to Knox's claims of innocence: it is not unusual for someone convicted of a serious crime to continue to proclaim their innocence, especially when there is an appeal pending. It is worth noting her claims, but they should certainly not be given more weight than, for example, the verdict against her, which was the result of a lengthy examination of all the evidence by the jury. We need to be a bit careful not to make the article look like a retrial by Wikipedia editors. Bluewave (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Blowfish that there's nothing wrong with extra focus on Knox, as she has been the center of attention in all the coverage that I'm aware of (mainly US coverage). I don't really have an opinion on the other issues as I haven't read the article closely. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Knox has received much more media coverage that Sollecito and Guede due to a few factors. She's female, attractive, has a supportive middle-class family and has the attention of the US media, which is significantly larger and more powerful and prevalent than any other country's media. As a result there is much more coverage of Knox that of the two men convicted. Guede has a substantial pre-murder criminal record, he is of bad character and his useless family aren't interested in their drug dealer son. It is not in the interest of the Italian media to focus on Sollecito, as it would increase the bad publicity that Perugia, and to a lesser extent Italy as a whole, has received since the murder. Perugia is now, in the minds of Britons and Americans, strongly associated with this murder; it is a fairly small city that is not internationally known for much else. This is a disaster for that city's image, but it does no harm to the UK or the US for the media of those countries to give prominent coverage to it. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 01:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we take the first issue I noted above - a timeline - and try to create something? I noted this afternoon from a rough translation of the Italian Wikipedia entry via Babelfish that their brief article has a better timeline to ours. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

A timeline would be useful. This article also lacks details of what Guede, Knox and Sollecito said versus what has been proved and disproved as to who did what, when and where. The Italian version is better than this one on the timeline, but not much else, as their article is far too short. The Simple English article is tiny. In many instances there are details which have been disputed, but there is a lack of details in the article as to what the ruling was on those particular points and why e.g. footprint, knife. Did anyone back Knox's claim that she was not present at the house at the time of the murder? There is a severe lack of info as to what Sollecito's story is, such as during what timespan does he claim he was at his flat, and how far away from the murder scene is it? It seems Knox and Sollecito claim to have been at his flat together that night, but do the details of their stories match? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Timeline

Here's a start on a timeline. This is how it was described in yesterday's Sunday Times (paraphrased and condensed):

• Early evening, 1 Nov: Kercher visited friends. They ate home-made pizza and warched "The Notebook" on DVD
• Shortly before 9pm, Kercher left her friends' house, accompanied by another friend, Sophie Purton.
• They parted outside Purton's house and Kercher walked on alone.

What happened subsequently is disputed between the various parties. Mignini (the prosecutor) offered the following, based on the forensic evidence and Kercher's 43 wounds and bruises:

• Kercher went home to an empty house
• Shortly after, Knox arrived, accompanied by Guede and Sollecito
• Knox and Kercher started rowing: either about some missing money or the fact that Knox had brought the 2 men to the house
• The row escalated and the trio, under the influence of drugs, decided to involve Kercher in a violent sex game. The two men assaulted Kercher while Knox held a knife to her throat.
• Kercher screamed loudly and was heard by an elderly neighbour who said she felt as if she was "in a house of horrors"
• Knox then stabbed Kercher in the neck
• As Kercher lay dying, Knox and Sollecito fled. Guedo stayed and tried to staunch the blood with some towels. Then he fled too.
• One or more of the trio tried to wash away blood, but left the bathroom sink stained with blood and bloody footprints on the floor that matched Knox and Sollecito's feet
• The trio broke a window to make it look like a break-in and locked Kercher's bedroom door.

The other protagonists have different versions of events

• Knox and Sollecito's initial version of the story was that there had been a break-in at the house and that they had not been inside.
• Knox's second version of the story was that the murder was committed by Lumumba, and that she (Knox) was in the kitchen, covering her ears because of the screams.
• Knox's third verion was that she and Sollecito had spent the evening and night of the murder at his flat and had only returned to the house in the morning. Bluewave (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Even this timeline is biased. The versions one and three given for the defendants Knox and Sollecito are one in the same. They are not inconsistent stories. Knox's story about Lumumba was given after 14 hours straight of interrogation and intimidation. What 20 year old girl would not have been frightened and intimidated, especially after being hit and called a "stupid liar". It is well known that people will make false statements when cracking under the pressure of a lengthy interrogation. PilgrimRose (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This was just my best effort at summarising the sequence of events, as related in the Sunday Times. I'm sure others can improve on it or develop it. However, the fact that Knox changed her story is relevant and I am sure it was a factor considered by the jury. Bluewave (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Anti-American bias and presumption of guilt

This article was written long before a verdict was rendered, yet it was written as if the guilt of the American girl and her boyfriend were presumed. The article has been written in a very biased manner, and attempts to make the article more neutral are being deleted.

An editor of this article, Sushi Sushi, has made blatently anti-American comments on this talk page. When I added a comment about that to this talk page, he or she removed my comment from this talk page, but left his offensive anti-American remark.

There are strong feelings in the United States that bias in the Italian media denied Amanda Knox a fair trial, by prejudicing public opinion against her. That will be a growing sentiment in the U.S., as more American writers look into this fiasco. I hope that Wikipedia will not join in worsening that injustice by allowing only a one-sided view against the American girl and her boyfriend to be presented in this article.

The point of view should be NEUTRAL, not only AGAINST Amanda Knox--who most Americans view as a badly victimized young girl. The point of view that she is innocent is shared by millions in America. That point of view should be allowed a little presence in this article, at least just a little bit. While the murder of young Meredith was a horrible tragedy from which her family will never recover, the real killer was already convicted before Amanda went on trial. PilgrimRose (talk) 05:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely NO PROOF or even any shred of indication that the trial suffered from anti-american bias, this is seemingly a complete fabrication by American Media. I heard that the fact that some of the jurors wore the italian colors was somehow anti American. However, this is just plain ridiculous.

Moreover, millions of americans may perhaps see her as an innocent victim, but these are the same people subjected to american media which has to say the very least been very biased, even the CNN and been very biased in their reporting. —Bjorn I. Clever (talk • contribs) 16:33, 7 December 2009

This is not a FORUM to discuss your opinion on the trial. This is a discussion page for the article. If you don't have comments pertinent to the improvement of the article, please don't comment. --71.245.116.133 (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted some statements from this section as they only provide personal opinion, pilgrimrose failed to provide any evidence to suggest anti-american bias and another user only posted a personal rant. PEOPLE PLEASE if you cannot provide anything constructive then do not post. There are forums on the internet where you can voice your personal opinion. This is not the place to do so. I also agree that refering to american citizens as 'bloody americans' is unacceptable. Pilgrimrose until you post something that comes close to resemble evidence of anti-american sentiment regarding the trial I suggest you stay away from this talk page. Bjorn I. Clever (talk) 07:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Why the notability and media coverage?

I've just looked through this article, and I think it's actually at a reasonably high standard given the amount of attention it's been under. However, something seems to be missing: it doesn't have a clear statement anywhere of why this is a notable murder case. It states that it received a great deal of media coverage from multiple countries (which it did), but doesn't really say what it is about this murder that made it so interesting to the media. Perhaps it's difficult to do that without violating No original research, but I feel that to be properly encyclopaedic, this article needs some sort of explanation of why this was such an important story in the first place. Robofish (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• On 8Dec09, I had instinctively added an intro paragraph that summarizes the notability of the situation:  "The event initially appeared to be a routine one-man, rape/murder (with the man admitting he saw her die). However, it became highly notable in world media when prosecutors treated the event as a sexual torture/killing, allegedly pre-planned by 3 people aged 20-23 who had known each other less than 3 weeks." (added to article 8Dec09 1am) -Wikid77 03:53, 8 December 2009

"The case received heavy media interest." Rich Farmbrough, 15:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC).

Notability is sort of a meta question-- its discussion belongs on the talk page rather than the article page. As to why this particular subject is notable, it's because of the volume of coverage over a sustained period of time. That's what notability requires. Blowfish (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This case is notable because of the huge amount of media coverage it has received for over two years from the media of at least three major countries. The amount and prevalence of the media coverage is due to the fact it interests millions of people, due to several aspects of this case. The people involved are from different countries. It is the kind of case that can be sensationalised due to the alleged sexual motive. That the victim and one killer are young females makes the case more unusual and horrifying. Knox and Sollecito are from nice middle class backgrounds and did not have prior criminal records. It is the kind of case that raises emotions in the minds of a large proportion of people. The British media have reported the story with the suggestion of 'your daughter could be murdered by sexual sadists when she's abroad' and the American media have suggested 'your daughter could be wrongly convicted of murder by a medieval system when she's abroad'. Millions of people in the UK strongly relate to the Kercher family and fear going through what they have been through during the last two years. Millions of Americans relate likewise to the Knox family, and the horror of having what they see as an innocent daughter locked up in a foreign prison thousands of miles away from home. In addition, Knox is significantly above-average in the looks department. Rightly or wrongly, good looks tend to be strongly associated in most people's minds with good character, and ugliness with criminality and bad character. There is a strong subtext in the reporting by the US media of Knox that 'she can't have done it, because she's such a nice pretty girl'. This case is rare in that it possesses so many aspects that make it of so much interest to so many millions of people. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I wasn't questioning the notability of this article (someone changed the title of this section) - it's obviously a hugely notable murder case, because of all the attention it received. I was saying the article needs to explain why it received so much attention. Lkjhgjfdsa's comment above seems a pretty comprehensive answer - it's a shame we can't just put it straight into the article. :) Thanks anyway. Robofish (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops, re-reading my post above, I see I wasn't terribly clear. It looks like I was saying 'why is this notable? This article should be deleted!', when what I meant was 'this was a highly notable and significant event, but the article needs to properly explain that'. Sorry for the confusion. Robofish (talk) 12:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Diana. Prepare to be hearing from me about this case a lot until it is finally resolved. I do not believe that the article gives ENOUGH credence to the flaws in the case against Knox and Sollecito. For that reason, it does not make explicit what the notability of the case is. The notability is that it is one of the most high-profile International murder cases ever to involve such an immense trail of procedural flaws combined with intriguing side-issues. It does not currently have a section discussing the interesting and related stories concerning Prosecutor Mignini, perhaps the most key figure in the entire drama, at least in sense of the trial. I am going to add such a section and will be vigilant about maintaining it, so I'm just warning anyone who plans to cry "impartiality" as a defense for persistently removing it, as I expect will be the case, in what have become the shark-infested waters of the once truly democratic world of Wikipedia. There should at least be a section entitled "Criticism of the Evidence" to present this information. The reason it is so important to include this information is that the cries of "Free Amanda and Raffaele" are not just coming from people who think they're cute. This man, Mignini, is under a serious investigation for fraud in his abuses of power and bizarre psycho-sexual theories that have already derailed another murder investigation and involved the harrassment and arrest of writers and independent investigators looking for the truth. Prosecutor Mignini (who also performed both the disputed interrogation and also directed the police, as is standard under the FLAWED Italian judiciary system) has a documented history of delusionary and complex theories that involve lurid allegations of a bizarre and psycho-sexual nature. Please see the false arrest and attempted prosecution by Mignini of US author John Baker and his Italian journalist colleague Mario Spezi, both of whom had done years of research on the notorious "Monster of Florence" serial killer case. http://johnbakersblog.co.uk/the-monster-of-florence/ Baker cannot currently return to Italy to continue his research because he is still under (false) indictment and at risk of prosecution. Furthermore, Spezi, an Italian citizen, has been subjected to intense harrassment, arrest and prosecution. Their "crime"? Refuting the insane theories of Mignini regarding the identity of the Monster of Florence. In that case, as in the Kercher murder, the forensic evidence points to a lone attacker, but the pet theories of Mignini involve outlandish and titillating things such as satanic cults and group sex orgies, and he also has a habit of ascribing depraved and occult significances to rape-murder cases that in all statistical likelihood have a far more depressingly mundane solution. An international union of journalists wrote a letter of condemnation and protest to Berlusconi about the situation (hardly the paragon of non-corruption himself) that is reproduced here: http://cpj.org/2006/04/crime-journalists-imprisonment-raises-alarm.php In the aftermath of his arrest and interrogation, which included efforts by Mignini to get him to falsely confess and/or incriminate his partner Spezi, Baker managed to be released for a time, during which he took the opportunity to flee the country. He has described an aggressive and terrifying interrogation, presided over by Mignini himself, that implied that Mignini knew that Baker himself was implicated in the very killings he was investigating. If you read the two links above, you will get the background of the case and you can then investigate others on your own, as I have, by researching it independently. Diana Trimble, Freelance Journalist, UK, Member, British Association of Journalists, USA and UK Citizen —Dianarama (talk • contribs) 19:26, 7 December 2009

• I agree with those views, and others have noted that readers will expect such text in the article. About 5 hours later, I had instinctively added an intro section noting the prosecution as an unusual scenario of a 3-person, sex-torture killing. -Wikid77 03:53, 8 December 2009

Age discrimination

The article says that a lighter sentence was given because defendants "were young and had no criminal record". I've heard such things before, even in the U.S., but they don't make any sense to me. Shouldn't someone be given more credit for being old with no criminal record? A long history should tell you more about whether someone would commit a crime again. So my question is: is there an article that you could reference (or start) that would explain whether this discrimination is actually encoded in law or just a spontaneous bias of the judge? Wnt (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

According to an article in the Sunday Times: "An anonymous juror was quoted today as saying that despite the appalling nature of the crime, it had been felt unjust to condemn two people in their twenties to a life in prison." Bluewave (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Trial

The article does not mention the long break in the trial of Knox and Sollecito; why did that happen? Is it normal in Italy to try one defendant separately to and before the other two? Whilst there was more evidence against Guede, it seems strange to put him on trial first when he was arrested after Knox and Sollecito. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 09:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Guede opted for a fast-track (uncontested) trial in the hope of a shorter sentence. It's in the article. --Red King (talk) 12:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the break was during the summer mainly where most people are off work.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjorn I. Clever (talk • contribs) 16:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The length of the break and the reason for it should be mentioned in the article; is it normal in Italian trials for there to be such a long break in court proceedings? Whilst it is mentioned that Guede opted for a fast-track trial, it does not state whether it is normal to try one person separately to the other two for the same offence when they are already all in custody well before the court proceedings began. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 03:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Convicted murder of Meredith Kercher

The article should begin with "convicted murder" and not simply "murder." She was convicted of a crime that she largely contested and due to the lack of hard/real evidence there is reasonable doubt of her guilt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmf25 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Meredith Kercher was not convicted of anything. I presume you are referring to Amanda Knox. Whether any particular person is or is not guilty may be doubted by some. There is no doubt that Meredith was murdered. Not natural causes, not an accident, not suicide. The opening section says that Guede was convicted and that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were found guilty. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No Wikipedia article is titled Convicted murder of ...; Murder of... is standard, regardless of convictions, or the lack of them. The fact is, with this article as well as the others, the person in the title was murdered. Therefore the title is correct. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 03:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I will...

Report anyone who removes my comments. I was the first to post the verdict of the case yet it was removed. I'll have to get in touch with the higher ups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.206.145 (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Partiality

This article, which I have been reading a couple of times during the last year, is now partial and does not seem a good reflection of the "true case". Significantly, the section about Amanda Knox is the longest one, apart from the false accusation of Lumumba, it leans more towards a positive portrayal of her actions. This way, noone can understand why Knox and Sollecito have been convicted, indeed. Missing is for example the description of the fact that the house was cleaned with bleach the morning after the murder took place. Instead, the article just states: not a trace of Knox's DNA, hair or fibre in the bedroom." Further evidence against Knox and Sollecito is also not always referred to.

See: From Times Online November 19, 2007 Suspect ‘bought bleach to clean murder weapon after Meredith Kercher’s death’ Daily Telegraph, 21/03/09, Meredith Kercher murder: A new hole appears in Amanda Knox's alibi Amanda Knox was seen in a supermarket early on the morning British student Meredith Kercher was found murdered, despite claiming she was in bed, a court has heard. (...) Detectives believe bleach and cloths found under the sink at Mr Sollecito's house were used to clean up the murder weapon - a knife - and the murder scene itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Setern (talk • contribs) 22:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

How is it possible that a great deal of DNA evidence, hair evidence, blood and other forensic evidence was found in Meredith's bedroom if it had already been cleaned with bleach? Guede's and Kercher's DNA was all over the bedroom. It is not believable to say that Knox somehow knew how to remove her specific DNA from the bedroom, and the DNA of her boyfriend, while leaving untouched the DNA of Guede and Kercher. It would take a DNA specialist to achieve that feat, which Knox was not. PilgrimRose (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

So Knox just happened to be, by total coincidence (yeah right!), in the store buying bleach the following morning and swaring blind that she was in bed. Such a coincidence.. the sort of thing you do when you have a housemate lying buthcered in the adjacent rooms. Not buying fresch bread for the day or evryday groceries, but bleach. Come on... give us a break! 66.54.123.19 (talk) 05:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There isn't DNA evidence everywhere a person has been recently. It would be useful if we could find out in what form the DNA was found and exactly where. Guede raped and killed Kercher, so it would make sense that a lot of his DNA was there. Knox and Sollecito had an interest in helping each other avoid being convicted, so Knox could have cleaned only where she and Sollecito had been in Kercher's room, rather than cleaning the whole room. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 05:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the scene was an extremely brutal and violent one. Meredith had 43 bruises and knife wounds on her body. According to the prosecution, Knox assaulted her, pulled her hair, smashed her head against something, cut her with a knife, beat her. How is it possible to somehow clean up such a violent crime scene so perfectly that not one cell of Knox's DNA or hair or fibre was found at the scene while Guede's and Kercher's DNA and hair are left intact? How could Knox "see" where her DNA was? DNA is invisible. How could Knox have been able to see and find each and every cell of her DNA so completely? Also, how could a girl with long hair like Knox be in such a violent battle, with not a single strand of her hair being left in the room? To me the obvious explanation is that Knox was never in Meredith's bedroom at the time of the crime or otherwise.PilgrimRose (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sashes/family view

I have removed a reference to the jurors wearing Italian sashes - so what?; would we comment if a US jury wore flag pins? This is trivial and tries to make a political point. I have also removed a reference to the family's view of Knox's innocence sourced to a Knox pressure group. The family have no first hand knowledge of Knox's involvement, if any. We can cite reliable sources who criticise the Italian judicial system but must be careful not to synthesise (which the sashes inclusion was an attempt to - see the edit summary here). TerriersFan (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have visited Italy several times and I have never seen Italians wearing Italian sashes. If this is not common in Italy, one could reasonably ask after its meaning, especially in a jury of a controversial trial of a foreign national. Is it unreasonable to wonder if the sash-wearers were making a statement, and if so, what that statement might mean? I have seen many people in the US wear flag pins for no particular reason, so to see a juror wearing one could well be without significance. But if several jurors wore them in a controversial terrorism trial, for example, one could reasonably inquire whether they were truly imparitial.208.73.29.10 (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The sashes are worn because they are acting on behalf of the state. It has nothing to do with xenophobia or racsim. Bjorn I. Clever (talk) 07:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Reducing top tagboxes

I am reducing the top tag-boxes to avoid the mass of alarming, non-specific verbiage at the top of the article. Since the Italian judicial system allows up to a 90-day delay before appeals, I think the tagbox for "current event" is no longer applicable. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. It might become a "current event" again ones the judge filed his explanation for the verdict and the defendants appeal is laid out.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a unanimous jury

It should be noted in the article that the guilty verdict was not reached by a unanimous jury. In Italy the courts require a majority, not a unanimous decision. Thismightbezach (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

ABC News reported it as unanimous. http://video.yahoo.com/watch/6552557/17010021 --FormerIP (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Wrong name

Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini [ article text: ]

"Guiliano Mignini is the Pubblico Ministero (public prosecutor) of Perugia.[37] It was he who conducted the infamous interrogation of Meredith Knox in which Patrick Lumumba was implicated due to Mignini's questions about text messages between Patrick Lumumba and Knox on the evening of the murders and his belief that they indicated a rendezvous."

Her name is Amanda Knox (not Meredith Knox) - can someone fix this. —210.87.40.22 03:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The adjective "infamous" is a value judgement that should not appear. Some may regard it so, others may not.

Guede's presence at the house

Why was Guede in the house where he raped and murdered Kercher? It seems that Kercher, Knox and Sollecito hardly knew him. The article used to say that he was a hanger-on of the four young Italian men who lived downstairs, and that he often arrived at acquaintances' houses unannounced. This assertion was removed earlier this month due to it being uncited. Who invited him into the house and why? Was his presence there due to him being a drug dealer and one or more of them buying from him? I would have thought the police and lawyers would have asked about these points. Is the house split into two separate, self-contained flats, or is it one big, undivided house where he could have been let in by someone who lived downstairs and then walked upstairs uninvited? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Subarticle: Trial of Knox and Sollecito

08-Dec-2009: I have created the new subarticle "Trial of Knox and Sollecito" to allow space for numerous details. The main article "Murder of Meredith Kercher" has reached 48kb, becoming too large to expand the details of the trial, as requested by several readers. Because Wikipedia, as yet, still lacks advanced procedures for creating sub-articles, the edit-protection is not carried to the new page, so beware anonymous hacking of the Trial article. However, people can no longer claim "limited space" (on that page) as a reason to delete details about the various trial events, evidence presented, and arguments made during the trial. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)